J. Munch, “Does Prayer Change Things? Calvinism and Free Will Theism Perspectives”

Prayer holds a central place in Christian spirituality, yet its meaning varies profoundly across theological traditions. This divergence raises a fundamental question: can prayer truly influence the course of events?

This article examines two contrasting conceptions: first, the Calvinist approach, framed within strict theological determinism, which tends to confine the role of prayer to the believer’s inner transformation. Second, a non-deterministic vision that understands prayer as a genuine exchange, capable of influencing divine action while also fostering the believer’s personal transformation.

1. Prayer within the framework of Calvinist theological determinism

Theological determinism is classically associated with Calvinism and, to a lesser degree, Lutheranism.¹ Calvinism is found among the Reformed, Presbyterians, and some Anglicans and Baptists.² On this view, God, through an immutable decree, determines every event in the world.³ The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way:

“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass.”⁴

A major consequence follows from this doctrine: in orthodox Calvinist thought, prayer is not meant to alter the course of predetermined events. It also follows that the predetermined outcome of a person’s eternal perdition or bliss cannot be changed by prayer.⁵ The Calvinist writer A. W. Pink sums up this view as follows:

“Prayer is not the requesting of God to alter His purpose or for Him to form a new one.”⁶

In Calvinist thought, this inability to influence God or His purpose also follows from His immutability.⁷ Were God to change, this would mean He was imperfect.⁸ On this logic, asking God to change His mind amounts to asking Him to depart from His own nature.⁹ The Calvinist theologian Jonathan Edwards captures how this position shapes his view of God’s reception of prayer:

“[I]t is not to be thought that God is properly moved or made willing by our prayers. […] [Nevertheless,] he is pleased to bestow mercy in consequence of prayer, as though he were prevailed on by prayer.”¹⁰

Accordingly, the leading Calvinist theologians, beginning with Calvin himself, hold that prayer consists chiefly in the inner transformation of the believer.¹¹ In this vein, R. C. Sproul sums up the meaning of prayer in these terms:

“Prayer does change things, all kinds of things. But the most important thing it changes is us.”¹²

To correctly understand this kind of Calvinist claim about the power of prayer, it helps to bear in mind that, within Calvinism, God has sovereignly ordained not only the ends but also the means by which they come about, and prayer is one such means.¹³ Calvinists therefore describe prayer as a “secondary cause,” wholly subordinate to the first cause, which is God.¹⁴ It is in this specifically deterministic sense, then, that they can claim “things change” through prayer.¹⁵

This naturally raises a question for the Calvinist believer: if a prayer for one’s own situation or someone else’s amounts merely to a causal overdetermination of events already fixed in advance, can it still be said to bring about any real change?¹⁶ This view can accordingly foster a kind of resignation or ritualism, in which prayer is practiced more out of duty than out of any genuine expectation of a tangible effect.¹⁷ On this point, Christopher Woznicki notes:

“[A] number of Reformers were concerned with addressing Christians who struggled to pray because they believed that God’s unconditional decrees invalidated the significance of petitionary prayer.”¹⁸

2. An alternative approach: prayer as interactive dialogue

As early as the third century, Origen (185–253) grappled with the paradox of praying to an immutable God, even as he himself held that God shows a certain flexibility.¹⁹ He summed up the paradox this way:

“[F]irst, if God foreknows the future, and if this must needs come to pass, prayer is vain; secondly, if all things come to pass by the will of God, and his counsels are fixed, and none of the things he wills can be changed, prayer is vain.”²⁰

An alternative approach holds that the immutability of God described in the Bible (Malachi 3:6) concerns His character rather than His intentions.²¹ On this view, God is an emotional being, capable of feeling human suffering and of being moved by sincere prayer.²² God thus chooses to relate to human beings in a genuinely relational way. In this perspective, prayer becomes a true conversation: believers voice their needs, and God actively responds.²³²⁴

On this understanding, God’s plans can be genuinely tied to human actions, so that prayer becomes a real precondition for His action.²⁵ Numerous Old Testament accounts illustrate this relational dynamic: God answers prayers or revises an announced judgment in response to intercession or repentance. Moses, for instance, pleaded with God on behalf of his people, and “the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened” (Exodus 32:11-14).²⁶

Other biblical episodes reinforce this dynamic: Hezekiah’s life is extended by fifteen years after he prays (2 Kings 20:5-6), and Nineveh is spared once it repents (Jonah 3:9-10). Likewise, Amos’s intercession turns God away from an announced judgment (Amos 7:2-9).²⁷

The Bible also shows that prayer can be curtailed: God commanded Jeremiah to stop praying (Jeremiah 7:16; 11:14; 14:11), a restriction that itself testifies to how effective his earlier prayers had been at holding back divine anger.²⁸ At the same time, God adjusts His decisions in light of how a people behaves: He may withhold a planned punishment if that people repents, or withdraw a planned blessing if it persists in wrongdoing (Jeremiah 18:7-10).²⁹

Because of how they understand divine immutability, Calvinist theologians read these passages as mere anthropomorphisms: figures of speech meant to render an otherwise inaccessible divine reality intelligible to human beings.³⁰ Their opponents counter that an anthropomorphism, to fulfill its function, must communicate something real, namely that God sovereignly chooses to enter into a dynamic relationship with humanity and to be genuinely influenced by prayer.³¹ Dallas Willard emphasizes that this view in no way diminishes God’s greatness:

“[What we see] is a God who can be prevailed upon by those who faithfully stand before him. […] God is great enough that he can conduct his affairs in this way. His nature, identity, and overarching purposes are no doubt unchanging. But his intentions with regard to many particular matters that concern individual human beings are not. This does not diminish him. Far from it.”³²

3. Cooperating with God: prayer in free will theism

Free will theism grounds human experience in libertarian free will, the freedom to have done otherwise, thereby securing genuine moral responsibility for human beings. This position, which represents the majority view within Christianity, stands opposed to deterministic conceptions of divine providence, Calvinism foremost among them.³³

Within a framework of non-deterministic providence, prayer finds a natural place: to pray for God’s will to be done is to actively take part in its unfolding within history.³⁴ Prayer thus becomes a genuine form of cooperation with God in accomplishing His will.³⁵ Along these lines, C. S. Lewis holds that human prayer can genuinely enter into God’s providence:

“[God] made His own plan or plot of history such that it admits a certain amount of free play and can be modified in response to our prayers.”³⁶

On this model of providence, prayer is not guaranteed to be answered.³⁷ Nor does the believer know in advance to what extent God will actually take a given prayer into account.³⁸ Yet precisely because events are not governed mechanically, this framework allows prayer to be understood as a genuine contribution to how the world unfolds.³⁹

This interplay between prayer and providence is vividly illustrated in one biblical episode: David learns that Saul plans to destroy the city of Keilah because of him. He inquires of the Lord: “Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down?” God answers “yes” to both questions (1 Samuel 23:10-13). On the strength of this answer, David leaves the city, and in the end, Saul never comes, and David is never handed over.

For proponents of free will theism, this episode shows God revealing His knowledge of the different futures that could follow from David’s choices. It stands against any form of determinism and shows that prayer belongs to an open future, one fully known to God, yet one to which His creatures genuinely contribute.⁴⁰ Robert Picirilli offers the following image to capture this subtle logic:

“[T]he interaction between our prayers and the active working of God is exactly the same as it would be if He did not know the future in advance—except that then He would truly be limited and lose control.”⁴¹

Within this framework, praying for the salvation of the lost is fully coherent: believers pray in the knowledge that their requests align with God’s own desire to save all people (1 Timothy 2:1-6; 2 Peter 3:9).⁴²⁴³ Though salvation is open to all, God wants the believer to take part in that process as a “co-worker” (1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 6:1). Prayer thus becomes a concrete way of influencing how God draws someone toward faith.⁴⁴

Contrary to what some Calvinists assume, prayer within free will theism does not seek to have God act irresistibly, that is, to “take control of the will” of another person.⁴⁵⁴⁶

Rather, prayer aims for God to draw the person toward faith in a way that remains resistible and voluntary, an action that complements and strengthens prevenient grace,⁴⁷ whether by illuminating the heart through providential events or by removing obstacles.⁴⁸ These actions remain resistible throughout, and some prayers may go unanswered if granting them would compromise a person’s freedom.⁴⁹

4. If prayer influences God, can it also change the one who prays?

For some Calvinists, seeking to influence God through prayer calls His wisdom into question and contributes nothing to the believer’s inner transformation. Curt Daniel writes:

“The truth of prayer is that in praying we are changing, not God. God is changing us; we are not changing God. Otherwise, God is our servant, not our sovereign.”⁵⁰

Defenders of free will theism argue, by contrast, that the subjective dimension of prayer, its effect on the one who prays, is substantial, necessary, and essential. Far from working against personal transformation, this view actually fosters it in several ways.

First, within this framework, prayer sustains a sense of responsibility. If God simply supplied every need automatically, human beings would lose their sense of responsibility and grow ungrateful.⁵¹ Within a libertarian framework, then, prayer encourages active, responsible participation in God’s providential action.⁵²

This sense of responsibility also guards against self-idolatry, since it continually reminds us of our dependence on God. As Bruce Reichenbach puts it:

“Every time we ask for something we are reminded of our true position in the divine economy; we are the created, not the creator and sustainer. “Every good and perfect gift is from above” (Jas 1:17), not from ourselves. Since idolatry is a sin, and since sin is a serious offense against God, the conversational practice achieves a significant good in revealing and emphasizing this.”⁵³

But beyond this subjective dimension, the objective one, whether particular prayers are actually answered, plays a crucial role in personal transformation as well. When a prayer receives a concrete, affirmative answer, this encourages sustained engagement with God.⁵⁴ By noting which requests are granted and which are not, the believer comes to discern the divine will over time.⁵⁵

This ongoing process of being answered and discerning leads the believer to progressively bring his will into line with God’s.⁵⁶ To pray is to harmonize one’s own desires with God’s, and with His purposes for the world.⁵⁷ In this way, prayer unites the objective aim, the accomplishment of God’s will, with the subjective one: the transformation of the individual.⁵⁸

In the Calvinist perspective, by contrast, every outcome is predetermined by God, so that, given the system’s own internal logic, prayer exercices independent causal effect, neither on events nor on the believer.⁵⁹ Calvinist theologians’ insistence on the transformative value of prayer thus functions chiefly as a strategy for preserving prayer’s biblical importance within a theological framework that is, in itself, internally contradictory.⁶⁰

Within free will theism, however, the fact that God answers prayers freely offered by human beings fully realizes a distinct divine purpose: to draw a person out of self-centeredness while leading him toward the very transformation God intends for him.⁶¹

Conclusion

The Calvinist approach to prayer, grounded in theological determinism and divine immutability, holds that prayer can have a certain incidence, while remaining, by its own logic, incapable of causing an independent change in the course of events or in the believer’s transformation. This conception therefore struggles to account for the biblical pattern in which God listens, responds, acts, delays, or reverses a decision in answer to human prayer.

A relational, non-deterministic understanding, by contrast, offers a richer vision of prayer: it becomes a genuine site of cooperation between God and humanity, where human freedom meets divine faithfulness within an open future, without anything thereby escaping God’s knowledge.

This understanding allows the believer to pray with the assurance that his requests are truly heard, and that they can genuinely help shape the course of history, all while acknowledging his dependence on God. Prayer thus recovers its full, twofold dimension: it transforms the one who prays and takes a real part in the accomplishment of God’s providential work.

_______________________________________________

• 1 OLSON, Roger E.. The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God. In: WARE, Bruce. Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2008, p. 151. “[T]wo main models of divine-creature relationship stand opposed to each other: compatibilist and noncompatibilist. The former is usually designated divine determinism and the latter is generally called free will theism. The best known form of the former is Calvinism; the best known form of the latter is Arminianism (at least among Protestants). However, many Lutherans, like Martin Luther himself, are divine determinists especially in the area of salvation. They would not like being called Calvinists. Similarly, many Anabaptists (e.g., Mennonites) are free will theists and would not like being called Arminians because their tradition predates Arminianism by almost a century.” ↩︎
• 2 BALSERAK, J.. Calvinism. In: LOUTH, A. [ed.]. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. ↩︎
• 3 ANDERSON, James N. Calvinism And First Sin. In: Calvinism And The Problem Of Evil. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016, p. 204. “It should be conceded at the outset, and without any embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism: the view that everything is ultimately determined by God.” ↩︎
• 4 Westminster Confession of Faith A.D. 1647. In: SCHAFF, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007, vol. 3, pp. 601-673, ch. 17, art. 3. Available at: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.xvii.ii.html ↩︎
• 5 PINK, Arthur. The Sovereignty of God. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc. 2001, p. 204. “To say that “God has ordained that human destinies may be changed and moulded by the will of man”, is absolutely untrue. “Human destiny” is settled not by “the will of man,” but by the will of God.” ↩︎
• 6 PINK, Arthur. The Sovereignty of God. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc. 2001, p. 217. ↩︎
• 7 CRISP, Oliver. Retrieving Doctrine: Essays in Reformed Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010, ch. John Calvin and Petitioning God, p. 133. ↩︎
• 8 BERKHOF, Louis. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2021, pp. 59-60. “The Immutability of God is a necessary concomitant of His aseity. It is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises. In virtue of this attribute He is exalted above all becoming, and is free from all accession or diminution and from all growth or decay in His Being or perfections. His knowledge and plans, His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. […] It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man”. ↩︎
• 9 RAYFIELD, Lee S.. Is Intercessory Prayer Defensible on Theological Grounds? Evangel, 1995, vol. 13, n°1, p. 11. “The theological objections raised against intercessory prayer have been summarized by V. Brummer: i) God is immutable. Aquinas wrote that God’s will is unchangeable and inflexible; it has been fixed from all eternity. For God to change his mind implies imperfection for only one state could have been perfect. Aquinas concluded from God’s immutability, ‘Therefore, it is fitting that we should not pray to God.'” ↩︎
• 10 EDWARDS, Jonathan. The Most High a Prayer-Hearing God. In: ISAIAH, Thomas [ed.]. The Works of President Edwards. Worcester: Isaac Sturevant, 1908, vol. 8, p. 55. ↩︎
• 11 WOZNICKI, Christopher. Is Prayer Redundant? Calvin And The Early Reformers On The Problem Of Petitionary Prayer. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2017, vol. 60, n°2, p. 347. “Calvin—like Luther and Bucer—indicates that prayer serves the function of “kindling the heart.” This “kindling” function of prayer is closely related to another important feature of Calvin’s theology of petitionary prayer, namely that prayer is primarily for the sake of ourselves rather than for God.” ↩︎
• 12 SPROUL, R. C.. The Prayer of the Lord. Orlando: Reformation Trust Pub., 2009, ch. Praying to the God Who already Knows. ↩︎
• 13 FRAME, John M.. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013, ch. 48. “Prayer really does work. Now, of course, prayer doesn’t change the eternal plan of God. But within that eternal plan are many plans for means and ends. […] God’s eternal plan has determined that many things will be achieved by prayer […].” ↩︎
• 14 SPROUL, R. C.. Does Prayer Change Things? Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009, ch. 2 The purpose of prayer. “The mind of God does not change for God does not change. Things change, and they change according to His sovereign will, which He exercises through secondary means and secondary activities. The prayer of His people is one of the means He uses to bring things to pass in this world.” ↩︎
• 15 SPROUL, R. C., BOICE, James M. [ed.]. Our Sovereign God: Addresses from the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, 1974-1976. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977, ch. Prayer and God’s Sovereignty. ““Mr. Sproul, does prayer change God’s mind?” Do you notice the difference between that question and the question we are dealing with here? It is one thing to ask, “Does prayer change things?” It is quite another thing to ask, “Does prayer change God’s mind?” I looked at the woman and said, “I don’t think so, if you mean by the mind of God his determinate counsel, his eternal decrees.”” ↩︎
• 16 DIROBERTS, Kyle. Prayer, Middle Knowledge, and Divine-Human Interaction. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018, ch. 2 Petitionary Prayer and Theology. “Boyd asks what real difference prayer actually makes if it were not possible to alter God’s plan? Similarly, Erickson asks if God’s “plan is established and he will do what he is going to do, then does it matter whether we pray?” Furthermore, Paul Helm describes that the relationship between providence and petitionary prayer produces many theological questions. For example, “How can God respond to prayer by answering it, when his purposes are changeless? And why, if God is wise and all-knowing, does he need to be prayed to?””. ↩︎
• 17 WILLARD, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. New York: HarperCollins e-books, 2009, p. 244. “[God] does not pretend that he is answering our prayer when he is only doing what he was going to do anyway. Our requests really do make a difference in what God does or does not do. The idea that everything would happen exactly as it does regardless of whether we pray or not is a specter that haunts the minds of many who sincerely profess belief in God. It makes prayer psychologically impossible, replacing it with dead ritual at best.” ↩︎
• 18 WOZNICKI, Christopher. Are We Free to Pray ? Evangelical Review of Theology. 2020, vol. 44, n°1, p. 60. ↩︎
• 19 CRUMP, David. Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006, p. 279. ↩︎
• 20 Origen, JAY, Eric George [trans.]. Origen’s Treatise on prayer. London: S.P.C.K., 1954, p. 97. ↩︎
• 21 GUNTON, Colin E.. Act and Being: Towards a Theology of the Divine Attributes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003, p. 126. ↩︎
• 22 FRETHEIM, Terence E.. God So Enters into Relationships That…. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2020, ch. 7. “God so enters into relationships that God is genuinely affected by what happens to the relationship.” ↩︎
• 23 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “Since God desires a personal, covenant relationship with us, having us regularly engage in petitionary prayer is one way to encourage a conversational relationship.” ↩︎
• 24 WILLARD, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. New York: HarperCollins e-books, 2009, p. 243. “[T]he most adequate description of prayer is simply, “Talking to God about what we are doing together.” […] Prayer is a matter of explicitly sharing with God my concerns about what he too is concerned about in my life.” ↩︎
• 25 ROGERS, Ronnie W.. If Only You Would Ask: Praying God’s Conditional Promises. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022, ch. 6. “[P]rayer is a significantly relational experience in which we find some things determined by God and others that he designed to be influenced by our prayers. The result is some outcomes are changeable by prayer, and some are not.” ↩︎
• 26 PECKHAM, John C.. Why We Pray. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2024, ch. 1. “Scripture repeatedly teaches that God is ‘moved by prayer’ […] and ‘relents’ in response to human repentance and entreaty (e.g., Exod. 32:14; Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 3:9-10).” ↩︎
• 27 PECKHAM, John C.. Why We Pray. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2024, ch. 1. “Still later, Hezekiah prayed for healing, and God replied, ‘I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you’ (2 Kings 20:5-6; cf. Josh. 10:12-14; 2 Chron. 30:27; Amos 7:2-9).” ↩︎
• 28 PECKHAM, John C.. Why We Pray. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2024, ch. 5. “Many other passages also link righteousness with effective petitionary prayer […] Conversely, ‘when one will not listen to the law, even one’s prayers are an abomination’ (Prov. 28:9; cf. Isa. 55:6-7; Jer. 7:16; 15:1).” ↩︎
• 29 PECKHAM, John C.. Why We Pray. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2024, ch. 2. “God changes course in response to human repentance (e.g., Exod. 32:14; Jon. 3:10; cf. Jer. 18:7-10).” ↩︎
• 30 TURRETIN, Francis, DENNISON, James [trans.]. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Phillisburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1992, vol. 1, topic 3, question 29, art. 5. “Repentance is attributed to God after the manner of men (anthrōpopathōs), but must be understood after the manner of God (theoprepōs): not with respect to his counsel, but to the event; not in reference to his will, but to the thing willed; not to affection and internal grief, but to the effect and external work because he does what a penitent man usually does.” ↩︎
• 31 CRUMP, David. Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006, pp. 284-285. “Friedrich Heiler, once wrote: “Rational philosophical thought destroys the essential presuppositions of a simple prayer. These are: faith in the anthropomorphic character of God, in His real presence, in His changeability, and the reality of personal communion with Him.” […] Christian petition requires believing that the Father is honestly listening, is willing to be influenced, and is thus engaged in authentic two-way communication with the one who prays.” ↩︎
• 32 WILLARD, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. New York: HarperCollins e-books, 2009, p. 246. ↩︎
• 33 OLSON, Roger E.. The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God. In: WARE, Bruce. Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2008, p. 150. “Absolutely crucial to all forms of free will theism is the belief that persons only exercise free choice or liberty of decision and action when they could do otherwise than they do. A person who cannot do X instead of Y cannot be exercising free will when doing Y even if he or she wants to do Y. According to many divine determinists, all that is required for free will decision and action is doing what one wants to do even if one could not do otherwise. Free will theists reject this notion of free will as philosophical, speculative, and counterintuitive. It is also inextricably tied to a deterministic worldview and thus undermines responsibility for sin and evil except on the part of the person determining them.” ↩︎
• 34 ODEN, Thomas C.. Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology. New York: HarperOne, 2009, p. 144. “It is faith in providence that enables Christians to pray that God will carry them through hazards, care for them, and be present to them amid ordinary and extraordinary human struggles. Without God’s providing, the act of praying would be absurd.” ↩︎
• 35 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “In such an understanding, it makes sense to pray that God’s will be accomplished. The prayer for God to exercise his will requests that God bring about what he desires while incorporating us as his hands and feet into his actions in the world. It not only expresses our willingness to accede to God’s desires but also our desire to cooperate with God in achieving his ends.” ↩︎
• 36 LEWIS, C. S.. God in the Dock: Essays on Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2014, p. 106. ↩︎
• 37 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “Since God gives us freedom with respect to his desires and purposes, it is possible, and Scripture indicates that it is the case, that God’s will often is not done.” ↩︎
• 38 WHEDON, Daniel, WAGNER, John D. [ed.]. Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan Response to Jonathan Edwards. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009, ch. 2. “[The Arminian] usually expects no unequivocal miracle, but trusts that it may be done in such way as Infinite Wisdom may devise in accordance with the constitution of things; and that on the condition of his prayer it may be ordered otherwise than if such prayer were not offered. We know not how far the prayer of the saints is a condition to the goings forth or putting forth of God, nor how fully he requires the co-operation of his Church, in order to render possible such displays of his truth as will convince the unbelieving, and such impressions by his Spirit as the free wills of men in process of time will, it is foreseen, accept and obey.” ↩︎
• 39 LEWIS, C. S.. Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2017, ch. 10. “[W]e are taught, both by precept and example, to pray, and that prayer would be meaningless in the sort of universe Pope pictured. One of the purposes for which God instituted prayer may have been to bear witness that the course of events is not governed like a state but created like a work of art to which every being makes its contribution and (in prayer) a conscious contribution, and in which every being is both an end and a means.” ↩︎
• 40 PICIRILLI, Robert E.. Toward A Non-Deterministic Theology Of Divine Providence. Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry. 2014, vol. 11, n°1, pp. 38-61. Available at: https://evangelicalarminians.org/robert-e-picirilli-toward-a-non-deterministic-theology-of-divine-providence/ “It is self-evident that the Lord knew exactly what would happen if David stayed in Keilah, and that by his revelation he enabled David to avoid both of those contingencies. (I hesitate, but will suggest that this is a better lesson about foreknowledge than any philosophical-theological treatment of the subject that has appeared.)” ↩︎
• 41 PICIRILLI, Robert E.. Toward A Non-Deterministic Theology Of Divine Providence. Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry. 2014, vol. 11, n°1, pp. 38-61. Available at: https://evangelicalarminians.org/robert-e-picirilli-toward-a-non-deterministic-theology-of-divine-providence/ ↩︎
• 42 OUTLAW, W. Stanley, PICIRILLI, Robert E. [ed.]. The Randall House Bible Commentary: 1 Thessalonians Through Philemon. Nashville, TN: Randall House, 1990, p. 202. “”[A]ll men” [in 1 Timothy 2:4] should be understood to mean “without exception.” It is obviously the same “all men” referred to in 2:1, for whom various approaches in prayer are to be made. No one in the world should be automatically omitted from our prayers list as believers, inasmuch as it is the plain will of God for all men to be saved.” ↩︎
• 43 PICIRILLI, Robert E.. The Randall House Bible Commentary: James, 1, 2 Peter, and Jude. Nashville, TN: Randall House, 1992, p. 305. “The true explanation for His ‘delay’ is found in the last part of the verse [of 2 Peter 3:9] and lies in His longsuffering. […] Instead of deliberately purposing for any to perish, God deliberately purposes for all to ‘come to’ repentance.” ↩︎
• 44 WESSLING, Jordan. Interceding for the Lost: On the Effectiveness of Petitioning God for the Salvation of Others. In: CRISP, Oliver D., ARCADI, James M., WESSLING, Jordan [eds.]. Analyzing Prayer: Theological and Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2022. “Our petitions provide God with reasons for acting, and we extend our charity when God acts on the reasons provided by our petitions for the well- being of others. This is a valuable way for God to set up things, since it takes our deepest requests concerning others seriously, and because it orders us around others when we pray in the relevant manner. In addition, this mode of prayer may be but one means by which God authorizes His humans to participate with Him in His loving reign over creation.” ↩︎
• 45 WHEDON, Daniel, WAGNER, John D. [ed.]. Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan Response to Jonathan Edwards. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009, ch. 2. “Calvinists often claim that the prayers even of Arminians presuppose that God may at any time consistently with his administrative system convert any man they are praying for, or even the world, at any moment. But in this matter Calvinists truly contradict themselves. They pray, as the result often shows, that God would do contrary to his own sovereign election. Their prayer, though itself decreed, is often against God’s decrees.” ↩︎
• 46 PIPER, John. The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God. Sisters: Multnomah, 2000, p. 219. “[E]ither you give up praying for God to convert sinners, or you give up ultimate human self-determination.” ↩︎
• 47 GRIDER, J. Kenneth. A Wesleyan Holiness Theology. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1994, ch. 9. “[The Arminian view] means that we will use evangelistic methods, such as prayer, to secure an intensifying of the prevenient grace given the person we are seeking to win to Christ.” ↩︎
• 48 PICIRILLI, Robert E.. Toward A Non-Deterministic Theology Of Divine Providence. Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry. 2014, vol. 11, n°1, pp. 38-61. Available at: https://evangelicalarminians.org/robert-e-picirilli-toward-a-non-deterministic-theology-of-divine-providence/. “God can bring about circumstances that change people’s minds, by the way, without interfering with their freedom.” ↩︎
• 49 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “Our requests might go unanswered because what we request would require God’s removing someone’s significant freedom. Petitions that request that God change the will and choices of others must be tempered with the condition that God generally respects human freedom.” ↩︎
• 50 DANIEL, Curt. The History and Theology of Calvinism. Ph.D. Dissertation Scholarly Reprints, 1993, p. 218. ↩︎
• 51 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “[T]he practice of petitionary prayer allows God to grant us the good of freedom in response to God. If God simply provided out of his benevolence for our good, we would lose our independence. We would simply rely on God to take the initiatives that result in our good rather than being active participants in the world.” ↩︎
• 52 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “In short, the goods realized by the practice of petitionary prayer are double-edged: it makes us realize our dependence on God and encourages thanksgiving for what is provided, and it encourages our independence to freely ask and participate in divine providence for ourselves and others.” ↩︎
• 53 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. ↩︎
• 54 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “The objective dimension is not a primary end but rather functions to encourage the subjective ends of avoiding idolatry and of creating responsible independence.” ↩︎
• 55 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. ↩︎
• 56 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “The change wanted is in the petitioners themselves, that they freely choose to become like God, seek what God desires, merge their will and intentions with those of God, and become God’s instrument of change on earth. So, whereas for us the objective function is primary, for God the subjective is primary.” ↩︎
• 57 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “Because God is the one who delegates power to humans, our dominion over the earth reflects God’s ultimate lordship. We are to act—and accordingly pray—on behalf of God. God takes our self out into the world to act as the hands and feet of God’s providence.” ↩︎
• 58 REICHENBACH, Bruce. Divine Providence: God’s Love and Human Freedom. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016, ch. 10 Providence and Petitionary Prayer. “On this view, praying that God’s will be done merges the subjective and objective, for the petition is that God, in carrying out his will, bring about what we ask, as well as bring us and others by persuasion and enlightenment to know, love, understand, judge according to, and implement his will.” ↩︎
• 59 OLSON, Roger. E..  Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011, p. 162. “Whatever is the case, God has foreordained it. If he responds to a prayer — for example, for the salvation of a lost loved one — it is because he has foreordained it. The prayer does not actually change anything; it is simply a foreordained means to a foreordained end.” ↩︎
• 60 CRUMP, David. Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006, pp. 129-130. “First, many writers suggest that the benefits of praying for God’s will have primarily to do with the internal transformation effected within us. […] Second, many Reformed thinkers develop this suggestion even further, stating that God ordains our prayers as tools in accomplishing his will. […] In other words, God moves us to pray for the things he wants to give us and then answers our prayers “as though” he were moved to respond. […] The second suggestion […] attempts to construct a theological solution that not only reaches well beyond the contours of the biblical passages, but leaves significant textual wreckage behind. It is very difficult to read the Lord’s Prayer—not to mention the rest of Jesus’s prayer teaching—as anything but misleading, even deceptive, if God’s responses to petition are only “apparent.”” ↩︎
• 61 WILLARD, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. New York: HarperCollins e-books, 2009, p. 250. “Prayer is, above all, a means of forming character. It combines freedom and power with service and love. What God gets out of our lives—and, indeed, what we get out of our lives—is simply the person we become. It is God’s intention that we should grow into the kind of person he could empower to do what we want to do. Then we are ready to “reign for ever and ever” (Rev. 22:5).” ↩︎

[Original article: J. MUNCH. Does Prayer Change Things? Calvinism and Free Will Theism Perspectives. In: Arminianisme Évangélique [online]. 2026-08-31. Available at: https://arminianisme-evangelique.fr/does-prayer-change-things/. This article is used with permission. Any reproduction is strictly prohibited.]